1 Brian W. LaCorte (012237) lacorteb@ballardspahr.com 2 Kimberly A. Warshawsky (022083) warshawskyk@ballardspahr.com 3 Jonathon A. Talcott (030155) talcottj@ballardspahr.

com 4 Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 5 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400 6 Facsimile: 602.798.5595 7 Attorneys for Plaintiff 8 9 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA No.

10 KARL HEINZ PRIEWASSER, an individual, 11 Plaintiff, 12 vs. 13 LINTEC CORPORATION, a Japanese 14 corporation; and LINTEC OF AMERICA, INC., an Arizona corporation, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555

COMPLAINT FOR OMISSION OF INVENTORSHIP; STATUTORY MISAPPROPRIATION OF TRADE SECRETS; FRAUD; AND UNJUST ENRICHMENT DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff Karl Heinz Priewasser (Priewasser or Plaintiff), by and through his

19 attorneys, for his complaint against LINTEC CORPORATION and LINTEC OF 20 AMERICA, INC. (collectively, LINTEC or Defendants), alleges as follows: 21 22 1. NATURE OF ACTION This is an action for the actual misappropriation and use of the Plaintiffs

23 trade secrets and for injunctive relief and damages arising under Arizonas Uniform 24 Trade Secrets Act, A.R.S. 44-401, et seq., and for relief under the common law for 25 fraud. Plaintiff also seeks an order from this Court, pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256, 26 requiring the United States Patent and Trademark Office (PTO) to issue a Certificate of 27 Correction adding Plaintiff as a named inventor on United States Patent No. 7,438,631 28 B2 (the '631 Patent) or reassigning all rights in the '631 Patent to Plaintiff. Plaintiff

1 will also be represented in this action by co-counsel Robert A. Weikert, R. Mark 2 Halligan, and Ryan S. Lincoln of the Nixon Peabody firm. These attorneys are in the 3 process of preparing their pro hac vice applications, which will be filed in short order. 4 5 2. PARTIES Plaintiff is an individual and citizen of Austria, and is a resident of Munich,

6 Germany. 7 3. Defendant LINTEC CORPORATION is a corporation organized and

8 existing under the laws of Japan, with its principal place of business at 23-23 Honcho, 9 Itabashi-ku, Tokyo 173-0001 Japan. 10
Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

4.

Defendant LINTEC OF AMERICA, INC. is a corporation organized and

11 existing under the laws of the State of Arizona, with its domicile in Arizona, and its 12 principal place of business at 4629 East Chandler Boulevard #110, Phoenix, AZ 85048. 13 LINTEC OF AMERICA, INC. is a wholly-owned subsidiary of LINTEC 14 CORPORATION. 15 16 17 18 19 20 business in this judicial district. In addition, many of the events giving rise to the claims 5. 6. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1331. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants. LINTEC OF

AMERICA, INC. has its principal place of business in Arizona and LINTEC is doing

21 in this action occurred in this judicial district. 22 23 24 8. 7. Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(b). GENERAL ALLEGATIONS Plaintiff holds a degree in Electrical Engineering from Hhere Technische

25 Bundeslehranstalt, Austria, and is currently employed as an Executive Vice President 26 with DISCO HI-TEC EUROPE GmbH (DISCO HI-TEC). Plaintiffs expertise is 27 developing special, complex, and unique solutions for grinding, dicing, and polishing 28 silicon wafers used in the production of semiconductors. Plaintiff has almost thirty (30) 2

1 years experience in this field, has worked with most if not all of the worlds leading 2 semiconductor manufacturers, and holds approximately ten patents relating to grinding, 3 dicing and/or polishing applications. Plaintiff also holds roughly ten pending patent 4 applications. 5 9. Defendant LINTEC CORPORATION was established in 1934, and

6 according to its website is a leading Japanese manufacturer in the field of pressure7 sensitive adhesive materials. Defendant LINTEC CORPORATION offers a diverse 8 range of products, including adhesive papers and films for seals and labels, packaging 9 tapes, construction materials, automotive products, tapes for use in semiconductor 10 manufacture, optically functional films, and healthcare products. Defendant LINTEC
Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

11 CORPORATIONS stock trades on the Tokyo stock exchange. In its 2012 fiscal year, 12 Defendant LINTEC CORPORATION had net sales of 200,905 million. 13 10. Defendant LINTEC OF AMERICA, INC. was originally established in

14 Tempe, Arizona, in 1996, and, according to its website, specializes in proprietary 15 semiconductor manufacturing related products, including high-function adhesive tapes, 16 protective tapes, and specialty films, and specializes in Wafer Mounting Systems and UV 17 Irradiation Systems. Defendant LINTEC OF AMERICA, INC.s customers include the 18 top five semiconductor manufacturers in the region. 19 11. Among the products that LINTEC manufactures and sells are adhesive

20 tapes designed to improve workability and stability during back grinding of silicon 21 wafers used in the semiconductor fabrication process. 22 12. DISCO HI-TEC EUROPE GmbH is a wholly-owned subsidiary of DISCO

23 Corporation (DISCO), a publicly-traded Japanese company. DISCO HI-TEC 24 EUROPE represents and works directly with LINTEC in Europe. 25 13. In or about June 2003, and in response to a specific grinding problem

26 presented to DISCO HI-TEC by one of its customers, Plaintiff conceived of and 27 developed on his own a special and unique protective adhesive tape designed to eliminate 28 any glue residue on the front wafer surface bumps (i.e., active area of the chip) after 3

1 completion of the back grinding process and removal of the protective tape from the front 2 surface. In short, the tape only contains adhesive on its edges and thus only the edges of 3 the wafer disc come into contact with any adhesive. Test results following initial use of 4 Plaintiff s own sample tape were successful and revealed no glue residue remaining on 5 the wafer surface bumps or active area of the chip following removal of the non-residue 6 tape (NRT). Plaintiffs invention and the associated test results as described above 7 will be collectively referred to herein as his NRT Invention. 8 14. Prior to Plaintiffs confidential disclosure of his NRT Invention to LINTEC

9 CORPORATION as described below, at all times Plaintiff kept his invention strictly 10 confidential and it was not known in the trade or by the public. He also employed at all
Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

11 times reasonable measures under the circumstances to protect the NRT Invention as 12 confidential and proprietary. Thus, the NRT Invention was a trade secret. 13 15. Following those initial test results, and based on both LINTECs expertise

14 in the production of adhesive tapes and its relationship with DISCO, in or about the 15 summer of 2003 Plaintiff disclosed his NRT Invention to LINTEC CORPORATION 16 representatives pursuant to, and in accordance with, a confidential relationship. 17 16. The LINTEC CORPORATION representatives to whom Plaintiff disclosed

18 in confidence his NRT Invention immediately recognized its value in the industry and the 19 problem which it addressed and solved. They also acknowledged that the NRT Invention 20 was Plaintiffs and his alone. 21 17. Plaintiff disclosed in confidence his NRT Invention to LINTEC

22 CORPORATION on the express condition that LINTEC would apply for a patent on the 23 NRT Invention. Plaintiff also requested that he be named as the sole inventor. LINTEC 24 CORPORATION represented to Plaintiff that it would in fact apply for the patent, and 25 Plaintiff naturally assumed that he would be named as the sole inventor per his request. 26 LINTEC CORPORATION also produced sample NRT tape for use in further testing and 27 requested that Plaintiff test the sample tape so that the results could be used in the 28 4

1 promised patent application. Plaintiff did so and provided LINTEC CORPORATION 2 with the results. 3 18. During August and September of 2003, Plaintiff made numerous inquiries

4 as to the status of the patent application. LINTEC CORPORATION advised Plaintiff 5 that its R & D department was still testing the tape and working on the application, and 6 that the application would be completed and filed shortly. At no time did LINTEC 7 CORPORATION ever advise Plaintiff that his invention was not patentable or had 8 already been patented or disclosed. LINTEC CORPORATION also never advised 9 Plaintiff that it did not intend to file a patent application naming Plaintiff as the sole 10 inventor. In fact, LINTEC CORPORATION made the opposite representations,
Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

11 explicitly stating that it intended to file the patent application, and again Plaintiff 12 rightfully assumed that he would be named as the inventor. 13 19. Concerned about the delay in submission of the application, though,

14 Plaintiff approached DISCO during this same time frame and out of an abundance of 15 caution requested that DISCO apply for a patent covering the NRT Invention and name 16 Plaintiff as the sole inventor. DISCO did so and filed the application with the Japanese 17 patent office on September 26, 2003. 18 20. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time, LINTEC CORPORATION filed its

19 own patent application on October 16, 2003, and later filed applications for a United 20 States patent and European patent. Plaintiff was not named as an inventor in LINTEC 21 CORPORATIONS patent applications. Despite Plaintiffs repeated requests for updates 22 on the status of the application and a copy of it, LINTEC CORPORATION did not 23 inform Plaintiff that it had in fact filed a patent application covering the NRT Invention. 24 Had Plaintiff known that LINTEC was not going to file the patent application naming 25 him as the inventor of the NRT Invention, he would never have disclosed the NRT 26 Invention to LINTEC CORPORATION. 27 21. In July 2005, Plaintiff learned for the first time that LINTEC

28 CORPORATION had filed the above-referenced patent applications relating to, and 5

1 covering, Plaintiffs NRT Invention, but LINTEC CORPORATION and DISCO agreed 2 that the NRT was in fact Plaintiffs invention, and in light of the earlier-in-time DISCO 3 application the two companies entered into discussions regarding a patent-sharing 4 arrangement. Plaintiff still did not know that he had not been named as the inventor in 5 LINTEC CORPORATIONS applications, and indeed Plaintiff assumed that he had been 6 so named given the above-referenced admission by LINTEC. 7 22. The DISCO patent issued in Japan on February 26, 2010, but due to

8 misunderstandings on the part of the DISCO attorney who oversaw the application and 9 prosecution of the patent, it only partially covered the NRT Invention. The LINTEC 10 CORPORATION patent issued in Japan on January 29, 2010, and in the United States on
Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

11 October 11, 2008 (the '631 Patent). LINTEC CORPORATIONS European patent 12 application was effectively approved on November 3, 2008, however, LINTEC 13 CORPORATION failed to pay the fees required for issuance of the patent, thereby 14 irrevocably abandoning the application. LINTEC CORPORATION did not inform or 15 advise Plaintiff when these patents were issued or approved, nor did LINTEC 16 CORPORATION permit Plaintiff to participate in the prosecution of these patents. All of 17 the claims in LINTEC CORPORATIONS U.S. patent cover various aspects of the NRT 18 Invention, and at least one of the independent claims in LINTEC CORPORATIONS 19 patents covers Plaintiffs NRT Invention. 20 23. On June 7, 2010 or thereafter, Plaintiff learned that LINTEC was in fact

21 producing the NRT product and had been testing it in an exclusive arrangement with one 22 of the largest semiconductor manufacturers in the world. Plaintiff further learned at that 23 time that, subject to the results of the testing, this manufacturer intended to make 24 extensive use of the NRT product. Despite the fact that Plaintiff, with LINTEC 25 CORPORATIONS consent, had initially disclosed the NRT Invention to this same 26 semiconductor manufacturer in June 2006, and had even advised the manufacturer to 27 contact LINTEC CORPORATION in order to obtain additional information about the 28 NRT, at no time did LINTEC ever disclose to Plaintiff that it was working with this 6

1 manufacturer on a commercial application of Plaintiff s invention. Upon information and 2 belief, these efforts are being led by, and occurring within the facilities of, LINTEC OF 3 AMERICA. 4 24. In fact, and upon information and belief, during the time period from

5 roughly 2006 through at least 2010, LINTEC purposely concealed from Plaintiff the 6 extent and nature of its work on the NRT product. Instead, LINTEC affirmatively 7 represented that the concept was too difficult to develop and that LINTEC did not have 8 sufficient resources or interest to devote to the project. 9 25. At the time that Plaintiff conceived of the novel and revolutionary NRT

10 Invention, and when he disclosed it to LINTEC CORPORATION with the understanding

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

11 that LINTEC CORPORATION would prepare and file a patent application covering the 12 invention, Plaintiff kept his invention strictly confidential and took reasonable measures 13 under the circumstances to protect and maintain the secrecy of the invention. 14 26. Upon information and belief, LINTEC CORPORATION never had any

15 intention of naming Plaintiff as the inventor in the patent application, and instead let 16 Plaintiff believe that this is what LINTEC CORPORATION intended to do in order to 17 induce Plaintiff to disclose the NRT Invention to LINTEC CORPORATION. 18 27. At all times, the actions of LINTEC as described in the previous paragraphs

19 involved willful and malicious misconduct and a willful and malicious violation of 20 Plaintiff s rights. 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 28. COUNT ONE TRADE SECRET MISAPPROPRIATION (A.R.S. 44-401, et seq.) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments in Paragraphs 1-27 as if fully

set forth herein. 29. At the time that Plaintiff conceived of the NRT invention, and when he

disclosed it to LINTEC CORPORATION pursuant to a confidential relationship that existed between the parties, the invention as set forth individually and collectively in the

1 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint consisted of and constituted statutory trade 2 secrets protected by the Arizona Uniform Trade Secrets Act, A.R.S. 44-401, et seq. 3 (the Act). 4 30. At all times, Plaintiff took reasonable efforts under the circumstances to

5 protect his trade secrets, and those trade secrets derived significant economic value and 6 competitive advantage from such information not being generally known in the trade or 7 to the public. 8 31. Upon information and belief, LINTEC CORPORATION received the NRT

9 Invention from Plaintiff in confidence and with an obligation and understanding that 10 LINTEC CORPORATION was to protect the confidentiality of the NRT Invention, and
Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

11 that LINTEC CORPORATION was only authorized to make use of it in connection with 12 the preparation of a patent application that would list and credit Plaintiff as the inventor 13 of the claims that he in fact invented. Instead of fulfilling its obligations in this respect 14 and honoring its agreement, LINTEC CORPORATION secretly filed patent applications 15 covering the NRT Invention that did not name Plaintiff as an inventor. LINTEC 16 CORPORATION actively concealed these actions and others from Plaintiff in an 17 unlawful effort to prevent Plaintiff from sharing in the tremendous financial gain that 18 LINTEC has reaped and will continue to reap from Plaintiffs NRT Invention. 19 32. LINTEC acquired Plaintiffs trade secrets through improper means, as that

20 term is defined in 44-401 of the Act, and then unlawfully disclosed and used those trade 21 secrets for LINTECs own financial gain and to the detriment of Plaintiff. 22 33. In light of LINTECs unlawful use of Plaintiffs trade secrets, Plaintiff has

23 suffered, and will continue to suffer, substantial damages, including the ill-gotten gains 24 and unjust enrichment of LINTEC, and Plaintiff is seeking all available remedies for the 25 actual misappropriation of Plaintiffs trade secrets by LINTEC, including injunctive relief 26 and damages. 27 34. At all times, the actions of LINTEC relating to the actual misappropriation

28 of Plaintiffs trade secrets and confidential information have been willful and malicious, 8

1 entitling Plaintiff to recover increased damages and its attorneys fees pursuant to 2 44-403 and 44-404 of the Act. 3 4 5 6 35. COUNT TWO OMISSION OF INVENTOR (35 U.S.C. 256) Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments in Paragraphs 1-34 as if fully

7 set forth herein. 8 36. As alleged above, the idea for the NRT Invention was conceived by

9 Plaintiff, and Plaintiff alone. 10

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

37.

Therefore, Plaintiff contributed in a significant manner to the conception

11 and reduction to practice of the NRT Invention, and that contribution was substantial in 12 quality when measured against the dimension of the full invention as set forth in the '631 13 Patent. Upon information and belief, prior to Plaintiffs disclosure of the NRT Invention 14 to LINTEC CORPORATION, no one at LINTEC CORPORATION had considered or 15 tested a protective tape with these unique properties, features, and design. In fact, after 16 Plaintiff disclosed the NRT Invention to LINTEC CORPORATION, LINTEC personnel 17 admitted that the NRT Invention is an unknown concept and an improvement over the 18 current state of the art. 19 38. LINTEC CORPORATION represented to Plaintiff that LINTEC

20 CORPORATION would prepare and submit a patent application covering Plaintiffs 21 NRT Invention, and based on this representation and the fact that the NRT Invention was 22 conceived by Plaintiff, Plaintiff naturally assumed that he would be named in the patent 23 as the sole inventor. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that 24 LINTEC CORPORATION intentionally chose not to name Plaintiff as the sole inventor, 25 or even as a co-inventor, and never intended to do so. Thus, upon information and belief, 26 LINTEC CORPORATION willfully chose not to include Plaintiff as a named inventor on 27 the '631 Patent and any and all related patents. 28 9

39.

Plaintiff seeks to correct his omission by willful error as a named

2 inventor of the '631 Patent, and respectfully requests that the Court issue an order to this 3 effect. In the alternative, Plaintiff seeks an order reassigning all rights in the '631 Patent 4 to Plaintiff. 5 6 7 40. COUNT THREE FRAUD Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments in Paragraphs 1-39 as if fully

8 set forth herein. 9 41. Plaintiff orally disclosed his NRT Invention first to Yoshiteru Kawano of

10 LINTEC Germany in or about June 2003, then to Makoto Hattori of LINTEC Japan in or
Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

11 about early July 2003, and then to Hiroshi Sakamoto of LINTEC Singapore in or about 12 September 2003. All of these LINTEC CORPORATION representatives expressly 13 acknowledged, at that time and thereafter, that the NRT Invention was Plaintiffs idea, 14 and represented that LINTEC CORPORATION would at the very least prepare and 15 submit a patent application in Japan covering Plaintiffs invention. Plaintiff naturally 16 assumed that he would be named as the sole inventor in the patent. 17 42. In connection with these representations, LINTEC CORPORATION

18 prepared samples of the NRT (or as LINTEC called it at the time, the No Glue BG 19 tape) based on Plaintiffs design, and requested that Plaintiff complete back grinding 20 tests using the samples so that the results could be included in the patent application. 21 Plaintiff completed the tests as requested and provided LINTEC CORPORATION with 22 the results. 23 43. Had Plaintiff known that LINTEC CORPORATION was not going to file

24 the patent application naming him as the inventor of the NRT, he never would have 25 disclosed the NRT Invention to LINTEC CORPORATION or assisted LINTEC 26 CORPORATION in any way with its evaluation of the invention. 27 44. Upon information and belief, at the time that LINTEC CORPORATION

28 made the foregoing representations to Plaintiff, or failed to inform Plaintiff that it was not 10

1 going to name him as an inventor in any patent application it filed covering the NRT 2 Invention, LINTEC CORPORATION had no intention of applying for a patent naming 3 Plaintiff as the sole inventor of the NRT Invention, and thus knew those representations 4 to be false or knew that it had an obligation to inform Plaintiff as to its true intentions. 5 LINTEC CORPORATION nonetheless filed patent applications that directly covered 6 Plaintiffs idea, yet did not name him as an inventor, and instead named as inventors 7 three LINTEC CORPORATION employees who were not involved at all in the 8 conception and development of Plaintiff s NRT Invention. 9 45. Plaintiff relied to his detriment on LINTEC CORPORATIONS

10 misrepresentations or its omissions, in that but for those misrepresentations or omissions

Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

11 he would not have disclosed the NRT Invention to LINTEC CORPORATION. 12 46. Not only did LINTEC CORPORATION not apply for the patent as

13 represented, but LINTEC knew that Plaintiff expected it to do so. Unbeknownst to 14 Plaintiff until at least June 2010, LINTEC has been developing and exploiting the NRT 15 product for its own commercial gain and, upon information and belief, LINTEC now has 16 an exclusive relationship for sale of the NRT product to one of the largest semiconductor 17 manufacturers in the world that is worth many millions of dollars a year in revenue to 18 LINTEC. LINTEC never disclosed any of this information to Plaintiff, and instead made 19 affirmative efforts to conceal this information from Plaintiff. 20 47. Plaintiff is entitled to share in those revenues, as well as in any revenues

21 that LINTEC receives as a result of its sale of the NRT product and any related or 22 derivative products. 23 48. Based on the foregoing, Plaintiff seeks the recovery of compensatory and

24 punitive damages from LINTEC in an amount to be proven at trial. 25 26 27 49. COUNT FOUR UNJUST ENRICHMENT Plaintiff repeats and realleges the averments in Paragraphs 1-48 as if fully

28 set forth herein. 11

50.

By virtue of the actions of LINTEC relating to misappropriation of

2 Plaintiffs invention, and LINTECs development and exploitation of the NRT product 3 for its own commercial gain, and upon information and belief, LINTECs exclusive 4 relationship for sale of the NRT product to one of the largest semiconductor 5 manufacturers in the world, LINTEC has been unjustly enriched. 6 51. Specifically, LINTEC has received a benefit that would properly have been

7 conferred on Plaintiff, receiving exclusive rights and revenues to the NRT product and 8 related relationships, as well as the confidential and proprietary information relating to 9 the NRT product, to the exclusion of Plaintiff. 10
Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

52.

LINTEC appreciated and accepted the benefits of the NRT product, related

11 relationships, and confidential and proprietary information relating thereto; under the 12 circumstances, it would be inequitable and unjust for LINTEC to retain such benefits 13 without payment of the value of Plaintiffs share of such benefits. 14 15 53. 54. No justification supports the enrichment of LINTEC at Plaintiffs expense. Plaintiff is entitled to all available equitable remedies and, as a result of the

16 unjust enrichment to Defendants, Plaintiff is entitled to appropriate relief, at least that 17 amount which adequately compensates Plaintiff for the unjust enrichment received by 18 LINTEC. 19 20 PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court enter the following

21 relief against LINTEC: 22 A. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to A.R.S. 44-402

23 restraining and enjoining LINTEC from the continued misappropriation and use of what 24 are and/or were Plaintiffs trade secrets and confidential information, together with such 25 other affirmative relief as may be necessary to protect Plaintiffs rights in this respect; 26 B. An order pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 256 naming Plaintiff as an inventor of the

27 '631 Patent or the reassignment of all rights in the '631 Patent (and any related patents) to 28 Plaintiff; 12

1 2

C. D.

Compensatory and increased damages for LINTECs wrongful actions; An award of damages as just compensation to Plaintiff for unjust

3 enrichment to the extent such damages and just compensation are not recovered under 4 Count One for trade secret misappropriation, and the imposition of a constructive trust to 5 ensure the availability of that compensation; 6 7 8 9 10
Ballard Spahr LLP 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, Arizona 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400

E. F. G.

An award of punitive damages; An award of attorneys fees and costs; and Such other relief that Plaintiff may be entitled to in law or equity. JURY DEMAND

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff respectfully demands a

11 trial by jury of all issues in its Complaint that are so triable. 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 13 DATED this 31st day of May, 2013. BALLARD SPAHR LLP By: /s/ Brian W. LaCorte Brian W. LaCorte (012237) lacorteb@ballardspahr.com Kimberly A. Warshawsky (022083) warshawskyk@ballardspahr.com Jonathon A. Talcott (030155) talcottj@ballardspahr.com 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 Telephone: 602.798.5400 Facsimile: 602.798.5595 1 East Washington Street, Suite 2300 Phoenix, AZ 85004-2555 Attorneys for Plaintiff